Hell, programmers argue over web browsers. There is an elitist and closed-off system among hardcore coders that says certain things are better than others, usually for no reason, often for bad reasons.
Right.... as opposed to the rest of the population arguing over which (baseball team, basketball team, hockey team, football team, soccer team, nascar driver, music group, shoe label, clothing label) is better, which while I guess isn't "elitist and closed-off" definitely says certain things are better than others, usually for no reason, and often for bad reasons.
Or in other words, so-called nerds have different interests than the rest of the population, and they act completely normal about those interests within their peer group.
Everybody hates dorks who insist on talking about music labels or shoe brands to people who don't want to, but those types are pretty rare. Tech and gaming geeks are massively overrepresented here, and sports geeks to a lesser extent. When one guy goes on and on about his special interest to one or more people who are obviously not interested, but he doesn't get it, it's usually about technology, computer games, or sports.
Despite the massive popular appeal of celebrities and fashion, I've never been stuck in a one-on-one conversation with somebody who couldn't figure out that those topics bored me. I've been stranded in group conversations as the lone person who wasn't interested, but that's entirely different. People even figure out pretty quickly that I don't know anything about "Lost" despite how improbably that is. You have to give "normal" people credit for being much, much better than the average computer nerd when it comes to talking your ear off about stuff you don't care about.
(I guess there's another stereotypical dork: the middle-aged businessman who only know how to talk to other middle-aged businessmen, and who talks obsessively about cars, golf, or politics. I only encounter him at weddings, but you entrepreneurial types might run into him more often.)
One of the most-disliked kids at my school was the football captain, a Republican football player who wouldn't stop talking about politics or sports. I was in a class with him and with a completely insane dweeby kid who tried to add a word of Japanese into every sentence he spoke, and that second kid was completely ignored. We all made fun of the captain, because despite being football captain, he was just an absolute boring jerk. Similar targets in classes included pretty much all the sorts of people you just named. Even in really pretentious groups, like groups of actors, the one who nitpicked clothing was the one nobody else liked.
This seems like exactly the sort of response this essay doesn't like. It immediately points out flaws without regard to the message as a whole.
Finding flaws is valuable if you're doing a startup or figuring out a good design, but if you're in any sort of social situation, it will instantly turn people off to you 100%.
As of right now, the theme that I'm using breaks entirely in Internet Explorer. I've had it up for about a week and haven't had the time to determine just why that is. The text simply won't display. So I put that up for the time being, knowing that my blog is read almost entirely through RSS, typically not by IE6 users, and that it's unpopular enough that I typically don't see my postings show up anywhere else.
I wrote out a thoughtful little thing explaining why it was currently redirecting, then got a complaint from an IE6 tester that that page wasn't displaying, and decided "Fuck it, I'll wait until later to make my blog respectable." I'm in the middle of a big redesign/name change/shebang, and since this isn't the blog that'll be the center of that redesign, I'm not focusing very much on it until the other pieces are more ready.
Hell, programmers argue over web browsers. There is an elitist and closed-off system among hardcore coders that says certain things are better than others, usually for no reason, often for bad reasons.